SyROCCo: Enhancing Systematic Reviews using Machine Learning

Zheng Fang, Miguel Arana-Catania, Felix-Anselm van Lier, Juliana Outes Velarde, Harry Bregazzi, Mara Airoldi, Eleanor Carter, Rob Procter
{"title":"SyROCCo: Enhancing Systematic Reviews using Machine Learning","authors":"Zheng Fang, Miguel Arana-Catania, Felix-Anselm van Lier, Juliana Outes Velarde, Harry Bregazzi, Mara Airoldi, Eleanor Carter, Rob Procter","doi":"arxiv-2406.16527","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The sheer number of research outputs published every year makes systematic\nreviewing increasingly time- and resource-intensive. This paper explores the\nuse of machine learning techniques to help navigate the systematic review\nprocess. ML has previously been used to reliably 'screen' articles for review -\nthat is, identify relevant articles based on reviewers' inclusion criteria. The\napplication of ML techniques to subsequent stages of a review, however, such as\ndata extraction and evidence mapping, is in its infancy. We therefore set out\nto develop a series of tools that would assist in the profiling and analysis of\n1,952 publications on the theme of 'outcomes-based contracting'. Tools were\ndeveloped for the following tasks: assign publications into 'policy area'\ncategories; identify and extract key information for evidence mapping, such as\norganisations, laws, and geographical information; connect the evidence base to\nan existing dataset on the same topic; and identify subgroups of articles that\nmay share thematic content. An interactive tool using these techniques and a\npublic dataset with their outputs have been released. Our results demonstrate\nthe utility of ML techniques to enhance evidence accessibility and analysis\nwithin the systematic review processes. These efforts show promise in\npotentially yielding substantial efficiencies for future systematic reviewing\nand for broadening their analytical scope. Our work suggests that there may be\nimplications for the ease with which policymakers and practitioners can access\nevidence. While ML techniques seem poised to play a significant role in\nbridging the gap between research and policy by offering innovative ways of\ngathering, accessing, and analysing data from systematic reviews, we also\nhighlight their current limitations and the need to exercise caution in their\napplication, particularly given the potential for errors and biases.","PeriodicalId":501285,"journal":{"name":"arXiv - CS - Digital Libraries","volume":"40 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"arXiv - CS - Digital Libraries","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/arxiv-2406.16527","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The sheer number of research outputs published every year makes systematic reviewing increasingly time- and resource-intensive. This paper explores the use of machine learning techniques to help navigate the systematic review process. ML has previously been used to reliably 'screen' articles for review - that is, identify relevant articles based on reviewers' inclusion criteria. The application of ML techniques to subsequent stages of a review, however, such as data extraction and evidence mapping, is in its infancy. We therefore set out to develop a series of tools that would assist in the profiling and analysis of 1,952 publications on the theme of 'outcomes-based contracting'. Tools were developed for the following tasks: assign publications into 'policy area' categories; identify and extract key information for evidence mapping, such as organisations, laws, and geographical information; connect the evidence base to an existing dataset on the same topic; and identify subgroups of articles that may share thematic content. An interactive tool using these techniques and a public dataset with their outputs have been released. Our results demonstrate the utility of ML techniques to enhance evidence accessibility and analysis within the systematic review processes. These efforts show promise in potentially yielding substantial efficiencies for future systematic reviewing and for broadening their analytical scope. Our work suggests that there may be implications for the ease with which policymakers and practitioners can access evidence. While ML techniques seem poised to play a significant role in bridging the gap between research and policy by offering innovative ways of gathering, accessing, and analysing data from systematic reviews, we also highlight their current limitations and the need to exercise caution in their application, particularly given the potential for errors and biases.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
SyROCCo:利用机器学习加强系统性综述
每年发表的研究成果数量庞大,使得系统性综述越来越耗费时间和资源。本文探讨了如何利用机器学习技术来帮助引导系统性综述过程。ML 以前曾被用于可靠地 "筛选 "待审文章,即根据审稿人的纳入标准识别相关文章。然而,将人工智能技术应用于综述的后续阶段,如数据提取和证据映射,还处于起步阶段。因此,我们着手开发了一系列工具,以帮助对 1952 篇以 "基于结果的合同 "为主题的出版物进行剖析和分析。我们为以下任务开发了工具:将出版物归入 "政策领域 "类别;识别并提取关键信息以绘制证据图,如组织、法律和地理信息;将证据库与同一主题的现有数据集连接起来;识别可能共享主题内容的文章子群。使用这些技术的互动工具及其输出结果的公共数据集已经发布。我们的研究结果证明了 ML 技术在系统性综述过程中提高证据可获取性和分析能力的实用性。这些努力表明,未来的系统性综述和扩大其分析范围的工作有望大幅提高效率。我们的工作表明,这可能会对决策者和从业人员获取证据的便利性产生影响。通过提供收集、获取和分析系统综述数据的创新方法,ML 技术似乎有望在缩小研究与政策之间的差距方面发挥重要作用,但我们也强调了其当前的局限性,以及在应用过程中谨慎行事的必要性,特别是考虑到可能出现的错误和偏差。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Publishing Instincts: An Exploration-Exploitation Framework for Studying Academic Publishing Behavior and "Home Venues" Research Citations Building Trust in Wikipedia Evaluating the Linguistic Coverage of OpenAlex: An Assessment of Metadata Accuracy and Completeness Towards understanding evolution of science through language model series Ensuring Adherence to Standards in Experiment-Related Metadata Entered Via Spreadsheets
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1